Managing multi chamber tool productivity
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 25

Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity. Bruce Auches, Gulsher Grewal, Peter Silverman Intel Corporation Santa Clara, Ca. This paper appears in: Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and Workshop, 1995. ASMC 95 Proceedings. IEEE/SEMI 1995

Download Presentation

Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Managing multi chamber tool productivity

Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity

Bruce Auches, Gulsher Grewal, Peter Silverman

Intel Corporation Santa Clara, Ca.

This paper appears in: Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and Workshop, 1995. ASMC 95 Proceedings. IEEE/SEMI 1995

Publication Date: 13-15 Nov. 1995 Page(s): 240 – 247

OR Seminar Presentation

Teacher: Pros. 陳茂生, Pros. 阮約翰

Student: 937807 張幼蘭 2005/4/21


Introduction

Introduction

  • Because the operational economic benefits, Multi-chamber tools became popular nearly in a decade.

  • Used in Thin-

    film, Etching,

    Testing fields.


Measurements of productivity

PM

Various run scenarios

PM

Time

Run/PM cycle

Measurements of Productivity

  • Run Rate: output wafer per hour (wph)

  • Run/PM Cycle

    Motivation: help tool user to make decision of repairing or ignoring failure chamber that maximize productivity.


Delimit problem boundary 1 3

Delimit Problem Boundary (1/3)

  • Focus on parallel configuration.


Delimit problem boundary 2 3

Delimit Problem Boundary (2/3)

  • Parallel processing mode can run by other available chambers.


Delimit problem boundary 3 3

Delimit Problem Boundary (3/3)

  • Scheduled PM is triggered by fixed processing wafer quantity.

    • Quantity base PM: metal deposition, poly etching…

    • Time base PM: photo exposure


Responses of unexpected chamber failure incident 1 3

PM

PM

Time

Chamber Failure

Run/PM cycle

Responses of Unexpected Chamber Failure Incident (1/3)

  • Full Cluster Operation (FCO): take down tool completely to repair failure chamber.

  • Necessary if:

    • Central component fail

    • Cannot repair while the rest tool run

Take down to repair

Full Run

Full Run


Responses of unexpected chamber failure incident 2 3

PM

PM

Time

Chamber Failure

Run/PM cycle

Responses of Unexpected Chamber Failure Incident (2/3)

  • Partial Cluster Operation (PCO): defer to repair failure chamber and keep good chambers running until next PM.

  • Necessary if:

    • Cannot repair while the rest tool run

Defer repair and keep Partial Run

Full Run


Responses of unexpected chamber failure incident 3 3

PM

PM

Time

Chamber Failure

Run/PM cycle

Responses of Unexpected Chamber Failure Incident (3/3)

  • Run/Repair Operation (RRO): repair failure chamber while the rest tool runs.

  • May or may not be feasible depending on safety issue and failure position.

Repair with Partial Run

Full Run

Full Run


Fixed variables 1 2

Fixed Variables (1/2)

  • Tool Run Rate

    • Full Cluster Run Rate (FCRR)

    • Partial Cluster Run Rate (PCRR)

    • As FCRR decreases, FCO is favored.

  • Mean Wafers between PM (MWBPM)

    • Visiting wafer quantity between PM for each chamber.

    • As MWBPM increases, FCO is favored.


Fixed variables 2 2

Fixed Variables (2/2)

  • Major PM Duration (tPM)

    • As long as one chamber finished MWBPM wafers, major PM is triggered.

    • As tPM decreases, FCO is favored.

  • Number of Process Modules (n)

    • Count “Parallel Path”

    • As n decreases, FCO is favored.


Failure dependent variables

Failure-dependent Variables

  • Time to Repair (MTTR)

    • Duration of repairing failure chambers

    • As MTTR decreases, FCO is favored.

  • Wafer Count (%F * MWBPM)

    • Processed wafers quantity before chamber failed.

    • As %F increases, FCO is favored.


Output evaluation formulas 1 4

Output Evaluation Formulas(1/4)

  • W = number of wafers processed in a complete “run/PM” cycle

  • C = total time in a “run/PM” cycle

  • Output = W/C

  • Higher output is favored


Output evaluation formulas 2 4

Output Evaluation Formulas(2/4)

  • FCO

    • WFC = MWBPM * n

    • CFC = tBFFC + MTTR + tAFFC + tPM

      • tBFFC: Time before failure

        tBFFC = (%F * MWBPM * n) / FCRR

      • tAFFC: Time after failure

        tAFFC = ( ( 1 - %F ) * MWBPM * n) / FCRR


Output evaluation formulas 3 4

Output Evaluation Formulas(3/4)

  • PCO

    • WPC = WBFPC + WAFPC

      • WBFPC = MWBPM * n * %F

      • WAFPC = MWBPM * ( n–1 ) * ( 1- %F ), assume one chamber/path fail for example.

    • CFC = tBFFC + tAFFC + tPM

      • tBFFC = (%F * MWBPM * n) / FCRR

      • tAFFC = ( ( 1 - %F ) * MWBPM * (n-1) ) / PCRR


Output evaluation formulas 4 4

Output Evaluation Formulas(4/4)

  • RRO

    • WRR = WBFRR + WDFRR + WAFRR

      • WBFRR = MWBPM * n * %F

      • WDFRR = MTTR * PCRR

        If MTTR is long enough that other good chambers/paths reach PM, then WDFRR = WAFPC.

      • WAFRR = [ MWBPM - WBFRR/n - WDFRR/(n-1) ] * n

    • CFC = tBFRR + MTTR + tAFRR + tPM

      • tBFRR = (%F * MWBPM * n) / FCRR

      • tAFRR = WAFRR / FCRR


Example 1 3

Example (1/3)

  • Values for variables:

    • n = 2

    • FCRR = 20 wph (wafers per hour)

    • PCRR = 10 wph

    • tPM = 10 hr (hours)

    • MWBPM = 500 wafers per chamber/path

    • %F = 20%

    • MTTR = 10 hr


Example 2 3

Example (2/3)

  • Output calculation:

    • FCO: 1000 wafers / 70 hr = 14.3 wph

    • PCO: 600 wafers / 60 hr = 10.0 wph

    • RRO: 900 wafers / 60 hr = 15.0 wph

  • RRO is the best decision if it is feasible; otherwise, FCO is suggested to choose.

  • Deferring repair would cause 30% of FCO output loss and 50% of RRO output loss.


Example 3 3

Example (3/3)


Sensitivity analysis 1 4

Sensitivity Analysis (1/4)

  • At most time, the RRO is the best strategy; PCO become the best when the MTTF is longer than the time of processing (1-%F) wafers.

    • In previous example, the “break-even point” of RRO and PCO is at %F = 80%; FCO and PCO is at 72%.


Sensitivity analysis 2 4

Sensitivity Analysis (2/4)


Sensitivity analysis 3 4

Sensitivity Analysis (3/4)

  • Longer MTTR or later failure timing (bigger %F) lead to choose PCO; or else, lead to choose FCO.

    • Using the data in previous example, it can be plot a “break-even curve” of FCO and PCO corresponding to %F and MTTF. Above the curve PCO should be employed; below the curve FCO should be employed.


Sensitivity analysis 4 4

Sensitivity Analysis (4/4)


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • Tools should be designed to enable the RRO where successfully maximize output in most cases.

  • PCO availability should be minimized in most cases. The root causes of the premature failures should be aggressively sought out and fixed.

  • If RRO is not feasible, tool user should calculate the “break-even curve” to help make decision more quickly.


Further study

Further Study

  • Multiple multi-chamber tool repair decision process

  • Other site unbalance problems


  • Login